The What a Fucking Joke Department.

smokers, but hey, let the torture guy Rumsfeld, off the hook.

defending bankers and Republicans at all costs.

Yes, I'm referring to the DOJ's attempt to defend it as a separate war crime. I think it deserves prosecution in international court, too.

That doesnt mean what the government did was ok by any stretch of the imagination but it is what it is.
Now the ones really to blame imo are the senate and house, they have the power and ability to address the issue of torture and other crimes but they are choosing to turn a blind eye to it.

and the DOJ is simply NOT doing it's job on a number of fronts, this being one of the uglier ones.

such investigations not to mention they have the power of the purse so they could just cut the funding for the doj if they wanted to.
So in the end most of the problem with why such cases havent been investigated is because congress and the senate refuse to take action and in the instances that they do take action its usually to cover it up.

And imagine what would happen during a 2nd Obama administration if this precedent was set. There would be one lawsuit after another of high ranking officials just to bring Obama down.
It's a Pandora's box that would result in a system that does nothing but try to criminalize, impeach, prosecute current and previous presidential administrations to score partisan points.

If this suit were successful someone would sue Obama's staff in order to demonize dems 2016.

we dont open it, doesnt stop the Republicans from opening it any time they want. And if you are relying on "precedence" just look at Citizen's United.

Someone has to have the duty to try war crimes. Allowing war criminals to go w/o punishment is also a Pandora's Box that we are opening.

Bringing frivolous lawsuits (despite what the public at large thinks) is highly uncommon in the legal system because attorneys must be concerned about getting sanctioned by their state bar.

There would not be "one lawsuit after another" unless prosecutors could meet the specific criteria under the legal code. You can't just file a "witch hunt" lawsuit in court, not if you want to continue your legal career for any length of time.

And how well does the suit against Rumsfeld hold up in court?

because it might lead to prosecuting other people who commit crimes?

Did Clinton commit a serious crime?
The Pandora's box I am talking about the unintended consequences where people criminalize behavior retroactively or stretch criminal statutes to the extreme in partisan pursuit.

millions of cases of illegal surveillance why gave admitted to? The ones they made RETROACTIVELY legal?

They also are the ones who initiate impeachment for crimes and they decided not to do the honorable thing and do job they were elected into office to do.

doing anything about it in the future either.

Seriously, what do you think should be done about it?

I had innumerable discussions with my fellow progressives on this web site of the necessity of articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney and I was always told "...we can prosecute them later." It was always the same conservative leaning democrats that linger here that would suggest that '...impeachment was tactically bad.'

I'm not suggesting you were a part of that camp, but I would like someone, anyone, to tell me what the hell we should do to assure that this sort of thing doesn't recur.

I think that the senate and congress should look into it and have him brought up on charges for some of the shit he and cheney pulled but with the way the republicans are behaving its not going to happen.
Oh sure I can guess the reply from you or others might be "but why dont the dems do it" its because they arent stupid twits and they know that there is almost no chance in hell of the republicans agreeing to do it and even if they did agree the republicans wouldnt vote yes to having it go to a judge for a trial because they are still protecting both of the sorry sacks of shit.
To be honest I suspect its gonna end up alot like Nixon, most of us know hes a crook but he never was charged and convicted for his actions just like Reagan wasnt nor was Bush Sr.
As for preventing it...................if congress and the senate agree on a presidents actions we cant do squat to prevent them from doing anything, after all only they can impeach a president and no the ability to recall a president from office isnt the answer either.

Probably not.
What is productive as opposed to satisfying in a prosecution?

If you were to go through an extensive list, is there anything you could find that would be "prosecutable," fall into a civil grievance, or be forced into one or the other via legal maneuvering in the Obama administration? They have tried with the BC thing watch for more and if they are vengeful enough they might find a way to make it happen.

No matter which side you are on, is it truly worth government time and resources?

books that they are in fact guilty, I can not have any doubt of the verdict in a fair hearing.

What is this BC thing you refer to?

Considering that refusing to prosecute them for torture among all the other crimes they have committed,
( prosecuting them would begin to turn us from being a rogue state to the rule of Law) I can think of no better use of government time and resources.

As I see it, you are either with the war criminals or side with justice. with Which side are you on?

But I'm not on the "Lets gnash our teeth and blame the DOJ and the president rather than hold the senate and congress responsible for their failure to investigate and impeach for criminal activity as they are supposed to" side.

Seriously? Did you hear Clinton talking about the meaning of the word "is?"
The legal process is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. Do you seriously not think that there would be top notch lawyers who could explain that away???
When it comes to a reasonable and logical use of political energy and resources, there are things that involve the future that require the attention of the government. From a perspective of logical focus we still have health care issues, climate change, education, obviously - the economy and unemployment, international relationships and what is happening in other countries that effect us. Is it really sensible to blow a lot of that off in the name of vengeance?

I was referring to the birth certificate thing that actually was considered as a real question via the legal system. The judge threw it out but the fact that it got before a judge is something to consider.

require attention? How in your mind does returning our country to the rule of law; where we do not engage in illegal wars, spy on our citizens, torture or kill people without review; prevent us form dealing with

In fact, let's go back further and find a Grant drinking binge and see what could have been made of that? K

Kennedy's failure to invoke the 25th amendment due to his illness.

Dig deep into any presidency and with some creativity something can turned into some kind of technical legal grievance. A court actually listened to the Birth certificate argument and demanded that Obama appear in court. Of course, he didn't. What was the justification?

death?

This is his decision, and his alone.

but sometimes they totally baffle me.

This guy really is impressive. I have seen interviews with him and he was not as easily dismissed as the many other victims of torture who tried to get their cases heard here.

He is a very angry US citizen and it is a shame that his Government forced him to have to stand up for himself.

What happened to him should never, ever happen to any person who belongs to a civilized nation that lives by the rule of law.

What a disgrace our DOJ is. Joke is too nice a word for it.

As I have said before the ones who really need to do any kind of prosecuting and or atleast investigating the allegations is the senate and congress but their shirking their duty like they did when Bush was still in office, just to bad they dont have the same zeal like they had when it came to the president getting a blow job.

Another one-sided deal we Dems got. I missed the part about what we got in that agreement.

Does anyone know?

Dept of Justice is should be call Dept of just us.... they will go after Bills bj but, Rumsfeld detention policy and conduct in combat zone. promoting torture that the Japanese was hung for. the Dept of just us is just an good old boy network. winking at each other.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

Hard to tell sometimes.

And, that was domestically created "foreign detention policy" that did not ask US.

So, let me see, if the president declares a short war, he can have someone shoot anybody at any time since they would be in a combat zone.

I don't think I'd vote for that. EVER.

More like Department of Injustice -- there is no justifiable reason for Obama's administration to protect this war criminal!

Rumsfeld should NEVER agreed to TORTURE and Abu Ghahib occurred on his watch
He waterboarded our OWN TROOPS

Agree with Katz that DOJ setting a dangerous precedent here.

snip:
“Without the ability to turn to the courts, U.S. citizens would lose their individual rights because their ability to enjoy the guarantees of the Constitution would depend entirely on the whim of the officials whom the Constitution constrains,” Katz said in a brief filed in Febtruary. “That fundamental fact is as true in a war zone as anywhere else." SNIP

Katz said the Justice Department wants the D.C. Circuit to adopt a “radical expansion” of the law that would completely foreclose the ability of judges to review any constitutional claim based on actions in a war zone.

“This proposed rule extends much too far,” she said. “It would put all actions of any military official beyond the scope of judicial review with implications that range far beyond any reasonable level of deference to military operations.”